Trolltech, maker of the Qt toolkit which forms the basis for KDE,
announced today that the Qt version for Microsoft Windows will be available under the GPL in addition to its current commercial license offerings for that platform. This change will take place with the release of Qt 4. The Qt version for Linux has been available under a similar dual licensing scheme for several years already. The availability of a GPL'ed Qt for Microsoft Windows will make it much easier to distribute KDE applications that run on the Microsoft Windows platform.

I thought the most important and fascinating part of geiseri's comment was getting OO.o folks to drop that crap called VCL and go QT for UI layer?! Now it's much easier and very much possible. Gotta go and post this news in OO.o forum somewhere..

I think the problem is that StarOffice (Sun's non-free version) counts on being able to use LGPL'd code.

While OpenOffice would be able to switch to GPL'd QT, StarOffice wouldn't. And Sun's still funding much of the development.

I guess if a QT flavor of VCL were built, then OpenOffice could be released for all platforms and StarOffice could still be built for the current platforms, but Sun wouldn't be too happy with that.

At the risk of being accused of trolling, this *is* the crux of the GPL vs. LGPL controversy over QT. I guess Sun could afford to ante up for QT licenses, but then again, OpenOffice is GPL code. Essentially, does this mean that dual-licensed GPL'd code can't be built against the GPL'd version of QT? Does anybody else see a bit of a conflict there? Trolltech certainly sees the value of dual-licensing, but thay've made their toolkit unusable by other dual-licensed projects.

This is probably not intentional, but it's an unfortunate side-effect. I wonder if there could be an exception carved out in the QPL to allow dual-licensed GPL code to link against QT for free. Certainly an OpenOffice that's fully portable between Windows, Mac and Linux would be a great bit of publicity for Trolltech.

And quite aside from the freedom of licence granted by the commercial licence, which wuld be sufficient in and of itself, it ought to be understood that the Trolltech folks have often made it very clear that they consider licensing fairly negotiable. They give away free commercial windows licenses for educational institutions, charities, etc. on a regular basis. Their key priority in their GPL dealings has always been to benefit open source and assist in the creation of valuable tools and programs to help society in general.

So even if the license weren't sufficient, they wouldn't ever sue Sun over StarOffice/OOo. Just one phone call to the Trolls, and they'd sort it.

No... The Qt problem with dual licenses is the dual license, in particular, one that permits
proprietary (as opposed to commercial) use, without requiring that proprietary user to purchase a license from
Trolltech. If that weren't an issue, they'd LGPL Qt instead of GPLing it. They chose the GPL in part because it
prevents proprietaryf use, so anyone wishing to base their proprietary stuff on it has to buy the commercial license.

They wouldn't have an issue with the GPL side of the dual license, but allowing Sun commercial use would mean Sun would
need to pay in some way, either buying the commercial license, or making other arrangements in some sort of one-off
license agreeable to both parties.

Anything LGPL licensed can be linked against GPL licensed stuff (and the reverse), but the problem Trolltech would have
would be the more liberal terms of the LGPL in regard to Qt -- it couldn't relicense it for OOo or anyone else under
LGPL or it would effectively be allowing that license everywhere. Therefore, the situation on the ground would be that
proprietary reusers of OOo code, if it linked to Qt, would still require the commercial/proprietary Qt license. LGPL
reusers would be free to use the Qt code, but would have to keep it separate and avoid co-mingling of the code, so as to
permit Trolltech to retain its rights to require proprietary users get a commercial/proprietary license.

Thus, it could legally be done, but the OOo folks might not wish to do it, because that would require what they may view
as artificial constraints on reuse terms as opposed to the LGPL, freezing out Sun and other proprietary users who would
then have to make their own arrangements with Trolltech for Qt, a tradeoff Sun in particular may be unwilling to make,
as may be certain other OOo contributors as well, because it would effectively require some licensing negotiation where
OOo currently doesn't require it, in the case of proprietary users of the otherwise LGPLed OOo code.

Rob claimed that it would be a problem to build dual licenced code on Qt, but as I said, as long as you have the proprietary licence of Qt you can licence your code anyway you like.

Lets say I write some extension library and dual licence it under GPL and some licence allowing gratis use in proprietary software, for example CPL.

Developers can then choose under which licence they want to use my library, in case of GPL they can even use the GPL licenced Qt, in case of the other they will have to get themselves a proprietary Qt licence.

Neither case restricts my options for licencing my code, in fact I could just LGPL my library, making it available for both parties end even require proprietary users to make changes available again.

once both versions are dual-lic'd, and trolltech -at one point- stops lic'ing the next Win vesion under GPL. Then it is easy to merge the differences of the last and the next GPL (unix) version with the last, still GPL, version on Windoze.

I wonder, how much work has to be done to get a kde.exe shell, so that all those windows guys can ditch their explorer.exe and have a Kicker, Kontact, Konquerer and all those nifty programs?

I guess that the porting to Qt/Win32 is already a bit underway, because the Qt/Mac guys are also trying to get rid of all these X11 dependencies. A possible Qt/Win32 port should profit by that.

Please don't bring that religous flames up, that someone shouldn't port FOSS to Win32, because that would mean to support a proprietary operating system. I'd really appreciate a KDE-Win32-Shell, because on day 1 you introduce kontact in your company, on day 2, you substitute the explorer with konquerer and on day 3 the shell with kicker. If you can get your staff used to kword as well, they won't even notice the difference, once the underlaying system is not windows anymore. (be it bsd, linux or some other free os).

I hope, that some companies will see it like this and will support and maybe even sponser the KDE-Win32 port.

> Suppose that your favourite games and programs are available on Linux and Windows.

That just isn't the status quo:

1. Most PCs come with a default Windows installation that means most people have Windows already available (if they want to or not).
2. Most games run excusively on Windows.
3. Most business apps run excusively on Windows.
4. Most people I have met don't care about the operating system. They want good apps.

So

- they already have Windows (actually most people have to buy Linux..think SUSE)
- they have the games
- they have the business apps
- now they also get our good desktop apps

But point 4 is a big downside for Windows itself too.
Windows is it's own enemy.
The pc comes standard installed with windows 2K for example... why switch to xp?

but yeah, you're right that most people are very conservative.

On the other hand, I believe that exposing more and more users who never even heard about kde or gnome or kmail or evolution etc... will eventually make those people also read and think about linux. And in the end, maybe a small fraction of those people will swith from windows to linux. Maybe also the other way around.

I don't care what the KDEonWin32 ppl say, this is a bad deal. I have 3 people who are using liveCD's and testing Linux/KDE based solely on the application quality and integration of KDE. I am willing to bet all of the money I have that given the choice they will stay on Windows! They don't want to switch... most of their games/programs/friends are on Windows. Lets face it, to most people Windows if free, as fair as their concerned (stole it or got it with the PC.) There is NO argument I have seen that can convince me that KDE on Win32 is a good idea. Some applications (like Office and Browsers) makes sense on both platforms; but KDE is a selling point for FOSS software. Something unique. Something better than ANYTHING on their platform. Something to bring ppl to Linux... and now that selling point is going to disappear.

Thats really the point isn't it. KDE on Win32 is probably good for KDE (at least in the short run), however it is really bad for Linux. Without Linux we would not have had KDE. If this kills Linux on the desktop, KDE will also be hurt in the long run.

You are missing the point. KDE on Win32 couldn't POSSIBLY hurt linux. All it can do is increase usage of KDE apps. Since KDE apps will natively run on Linux and be PORTED to win32, how can you say that this would kill Linux?

If ANYTHING it would get more people using KDE apps for their primary use, and make the OS platform become even LESS relevant to the end user. This would instantly mean that it would no longer be a death certificate for a PC manufacturer to ship Linux on new systems now that all their customers will be using NATIVE linux apps... Why would they ship WINXP on a system that comes with K3B, KMail, iCalendar connectivity (to replace Outlook/Exchange) and FireFox/Konw (to replace IE).. Why would a MFG WASTE 100-150$ per unit shipped to buy the OEM copy of winXP when they could ship thousands of copies of linux for $0 and save MILLIONS? What is the incentive of PC MFG's to ship winXP if all their customers are using FOSS software primarilly?

Your point makes no sence because it doesn't take these factors into account. If these ported QT apps became as popular as you fear they would, then there would be NO incentive to purchase a more expensive PC that shipped with WinXP.

>>Why would they ship WINXP on a system that comes with K3B, KMail, iCalendar connectivity (to replace Outlook/Exchange) and FireFox/Konw (to replace IE).. Why would a MFG WASTE 100-150$ per unit shipped to buy the OEM copy of winXP when they could ship thousands of copies of linux for $0 and save MILLIONS? What is the incentive of PC MFG's to ship winXP if all their customers are using FOSS software primarilly?

Because the OEM's don't pay 1000150 per copy, because if the OEM's ship ONE copy of Linux they DO pay 100-150, because they know that Linux will not run Halo 2, because they know that their costomers are using a mix of FOSS software and tnon-FOSS software adn there is only one platform that does that! All this does is expand the product offering of Windows and DOES NOT increase what we have on our platform.

>>If these ported QT apps became as popular as you fear they would, then there would be NO incentive to purchase a more expensive PC that shipped with WinXP.

Your statements make no sence because you fail to take into the fact that OEMs (Dell, HP, and even until recently IBM) charge MORE for PC's without an OS because that is what their OEM licence for Windows deads that they do.

I am not speaking from a black hole or simply guessing that this COULD be the problem. This same kind of problem killed OS/2 for OEMs, and Linux is LOOSING users to Mac OSX because of this VERY SAME REASON.

...needs windows and gates?
> ...
> Why switch?
because Windows sux badass?
I mean, I've used it to the limit from 1995 on, and it is the most worthless piece of crap EVER assembled to run on computers. It simply does not work - it is a giant, badly implemented pile of design-flaws composed with bugs and non-sense, laminated with an eye-contamininating skin of worst-colored unusable illogical user interface. Screw that - fully converted to Gentoo Linux in 3Q2004 (took some sweat and bubblegum, but hey it flies, too) - and mighty proud. Guess what - it has no limits. You decide, it follows the order. Only hardware's the limit..
It never even came to my mind to boot my XP partition - when I tried once some time ago - it instantly BSODed on startup...
why bother with a shitpile that costs money if you can have a cake (and eat it, too) for free?
M$ is going down, and I love it. All the grief, all the pain... it's all coming back on them pretty soon. Hurray.
Hail Eris. !Live! the discord. !Feel! the power of the chaos. muah!!!111!1!

Re point #1: Read comments above to notice that if FOSS applications are ported to windows, people will be used to them and slowly come off the high that is Microsoft (perfect example: OOo, FireFox, Thunderbird, iCalendar/Sunbird [replaces exchange]) Now that people are switching to OOo, FF, Tbird like a flock of wild birds (yes thousands per day) it breaks them from the stronghold that is MS office, Outlook/Exchange, and IE. Save this thought for later discussion below.

#2: good point. But you forget that most OpenGL games are tri-platform (and several companies do it on purpose so they can keep the Mac marketshare which is growing) Not to mention that _almost_ all DX games work under Transgaming when paired with an nVidia card under linux. This includes HL2, Zoo Tycoon, The Simms, etc etc... Anything that is on the top sellers list.

#3: You have a point here but that is where my point #1 comes in. The business apps (outlook/exchange, IE, MS Office) are slowly being switched over by significant numbers of people to FOSS alternatives which have been ported and stable on windows.

#4: Your point 4 actually helps the point I'm trying to make. Imagine KMail, Konq, K3B, and other popular FOSS QT aps get ported to windows. All these apps have PAY versions in windows (Nero/Roxio for CD-R, MS Office for office apps, Exchange server for outlook+calendar integration) These software packages do NOT come with windows and have a VERY significant cost to the end user. CD-R Software for windows is 100 USD, MS Office is 400 USD, Exchange server charges THOUSANDS of dollars per year for licensing.... Every single one of these benefits can be gotten _FOR_FREE_ on FOSS servers and applications with the SAME or better functionality. And more reliable.

Now I will make my point #5: Imagine that these programs slowly do replace MS apps (MS office, IE, NERO/Roxio, Exchange server) with the proliferation of FOSS apps on windows because of Free QT on win32. Imageine 2 years from now (assuming these apps have been ported) where now there is no reason to order a computer with WinXP on it because you don't use any windows specific applications anymore. Why would a manufacturer ship winXP on a new machine if it is targeted at a user who is only using K3B, FireFox/Konq, Thunderbird/Sunbird/iCalendar, OOo, etc? The facts are that MOST people could move away from all applications which require windows if FOSS QT apps were ported over. And the facts are that if this were to happen, there would be NO incentive to ship MS Windows on a new system when the manufacturer can simply ship a license free OS at significantly reduced cost.

Re #2: I know about the OpenGL games. I play them on my Linux system, like i.e. Neverwinter Nights. But those games are still rare compared to DX games.

About Transgaming, I'm not sure because I haven't tried it. That's because I do have a Windows system. So why should I fight with non-MS Windows implementation when I have the real thing (and most people do have Windows).

Transgaming or WINE will always be behind Microsoft. For example what will happen with Longhorn when there are many APIs changes? I'm confident that they will have a hard time catching up.

1. If the key app's that people use are available on linux then there will be more demand for Linux. More demand for Linux will equate to more support from vendors.

2. I don't care about games. Neither do the people in my department.

3. In our department the tech support folk [myself included] play a key role in deciding who runs what OS. We create our own disk images for school computers, and we inform ppl about what OS / applications best suits their needs.

We would much rather support a product that is multi-platform. This is much better than having to support 3 completely different app's for WinXP, OSX, and *nix. That just means 10 times the headache [yeah you do the math.. definitely more than 3 times harder].

I do care about security and viruses.. as does your average Jo running WinXP in our department.

5. MS Word, Excel, and MS Outlook are a crucial part of my work. Why should I switch to Linux if I'm not familiar with it's applications? Too much to learn all at once.

If the applications I need to get my work done can run on Linux then why shouldn't I switch to Linux? After all I don't care much for my OS [WinXP]. I know Linux is a rock stable OS, and I know MS Windows is flakey.. but I need to get my work done! I can't stuff around for a week doing my work inefficiently just because I am unfamiliar with the applications.

>>"Why would I continue to use Windows, if all the apps I currently use on Windows were available on Linux as well?"

Because this will never be the case. Do you honestly think that MS will port Office, Outlook, Halo 2, or anything to Linux? Seriously? Not a chance. There will always be some applications that people want that are only available on Windows. The only way to make F/OSS more appealing is to have MORE applications that they want on F/OSS platforms; and only on those platforms.

>> Better security

Joe Sixpack does not care!

>> No viruses

Joe Sixpack does not care!

>> More choice

Not if they can use OSS software AND Windows software on Windows!

>> Free as in speech and in beer

Repeat after me... Joe Sixpack does not care! The vast majority of computer users see computers as a tool; not a vehicle to express their first amendment rights.

There are some application exceptions (i.e. their are some applications that SHOULD be ported, i.e. office applications) but otherwise this is a BAD BAD BAD THING.

"Because this will never be the case. Do you honestly think that MS will port Office, Outlook, Halo 2, or anything to Linux? Seriously?"

No. Did I make that claim? I said that the kick-ass software that the user uses in Windows could also be available on Linux. And why couldn't that software be open-source software? Seriously?

"There will always be some applications that people want that are only available on Windows."

And there will be applications that will only be available on Linux/*BSD. So what's your point?

"Joe Sixpack does not care!"

He will care if the resident tech-support guy (read: the computer-literate relative) tells him to move to Linux. And if someone mentions to him "hey, why do you waste $200 on Windows, when you can get same functionality for free?"

"Not if they can use OSS software AND Windows software on Windows!"

And who is to say that the OS-software can't be so good that the user will choose it instead of "Windows-software"? IE is "Windows-software", does that mean it's good?

"Repeat after me... Joe Sixpack does not care!"

Not all of them, but some will. And those who do care, are the ones who the Joe Sixpack turns to when he wants advicee on computers.

"There are some application exceptions (i.e. their are some applications that SHOULD be ported, i.e. office applications) but otherwise this is a BAD BAD BAD THING."

No it isn't. First you get the users hooked on OS-software. After they have gotten used to them on Windows, moving them to Linux is trivial. Do you really expect the users to switch from Windows to Linux, and expect them to replace all their apps as well? That's not going to happen. You know it, and I know it. But if you can get them to switch the apps to OS-equivalents, changing the underlying OS is more than doable. But if we will try to replace their apps AND the OS in the same time, it will be very, very difficult.

>> And there will be applications that will only be available on Linux/*BSD. So what's your point?

My point is that alot of that software, that kick ass software Linux/BSD only software, will now be available on Windows... even more software that is available on Windows with nothing coming back towards us.

>> He will care if the resident tech-support guy (read: the computer-literate relative) tells him to move to Linux. And if someone mentions to him "hey, why do you waste $200 on Windows, when you can get same functionality for free?"

Users don't switch because of price (if they did then they would have already.) Users switch because the software they want runs on their particular computer. Users don't care about Linux... they care about their applications. Show them an application they cannot live without (that only runs on Linux) and they will switch. That is how the half-dozen people I have gotten to switch have switched. They sure as hell didn't do it to save money on an OS they pirated anyway.

>> And who is to say that the OS-software can't be so good that the user will choose it instead of "Windows-software"? IE is "Windows-software", does that mean it's good?

Exactly... if OS-software becomes so good the user chooses to switch, they will. BUT WAIT.. that same OS-software is already able to run on your CURRENT OS. So why switch? Because the KDE software is sooo much better than anything one Windows? Wait.. they will be able to run the so-much-better KDE software on Windows... nevermind. They may (and in many cases will) choose the better OS-software but they will have no reason to do so on the FOSS operating system. This announcement may be good for KDE (in the short run) but it is very bad for Linux.

>> Not all of them, but some will. And those who do care, are the ones who the Joe Sixpack turns to when he wants advicee on computers.

My tech department cannot force its own employees to use a given OS because the users SCREAM when the OS we tell them to use will not run their copy of (pick a random Windows application.)

Repeat after me... users DON'T CARE about OSes, they care about applications. All we have done is improved the software stack of WINDOWS. We have don't almost nothing to help Linux.

Yes, some will try linux (as some already do) but what we have really done is decrease the incentive to try Linux... not given them any reason to pick Linux's software stack over Windows software stack.

>> First you get the users hooked on OS-software. After they have gotten used to them on Windows, moving them to Linux is trivial. Do you really expect the users to switch from Windows to Linux, and expect them to replace all their apps as well? That's not going to happen. You know it, and I know it.

Ok, we get them hooked on KDE on Windows.. then we move them to Linux. But why? I could switch because Linux is more stable but I will not be able to run my other applications.

>> But if you can get them to switch the apps to OS-equivalents, changing the underlying OS is more than doable.

If what you say where true than Mac OSX should have been a windfall for Linux. Run all of unix software stack AND get MS Office, Photoshop, and Dreamweaver; find out you like the Unix stuff better... switch to Linux. But that is NOT what has happened. Instead every survey I found says that more Linux users are switching from Linux to Mac OSX than Mac users are switching to Linux. Mac OSX hurt us. Its a fact! Why? because they can run their Linux apps AND their OSX apps and they don't give a damn about price or freedom.

If what you say where true than Mac OSX should have been a windfall for Linux. Run all of unix software stack AND get MS Office, Photoshop, and Dreamweaver; find out you like the Unix stuff better... switch to Linux. But that is NOT what has happened. Instead every survey I found says that more Linux users are switching from Linux to Mac OSX than Mac users are switching to Linux. Mac OSX hurt us. Its a fact! Why? because they can run their Linux apps AND their OSX apps and they don't give a damn about price or freedom.

If your numbers are right, you got the point but... everything in a web forum has a 'but'

Joe Sixpack doesn't care, even he doesn't think. He will use what people use. He will be the last one to switch. He is the last checkpoint.

FLOSS and distros must concentrate, and they do, in targets that can be acomplished, these are corporate desktops. A easy migration path is *must*. And this means trying to replace, first, horizontal apps, as browsers and office suites. Then the OS. Joe Sixpack will use what his admin tell him. And this cares, thinks and there are many who want to do it, but can not.

These massive migrations also happen in a school and a faculty. And means money for distros. Money to survive. Money to the kernel, to the mail servers and the desktop.

There should be both type of apps. Some (horizontal ones) to help migration. And others unique to add value to FLOSS OSes. Remember: embrace and destroy!

"Users don't switch because of price (if they did then they would have already.) Users switch because the software they want runs on their particular computer."

you get it. Yet you don't. I have been saying all along that with Free software on Windows, we can lure the user in to Linux. If they start to use that free software on Windows, making them switch to Linux is trivial. Like you said: "users switch because the software they want runs on their particular computer.". And if they notice that the software they use is also available on an OS that offer several advantages over Windows, why wouldn't they switch? I mean, the apps are already there.

"that same OS-software is already able to run on your CURRENT OS. So why switch?"

Because:

- Linux is free (both in price and in speech. And people DO care about the price!)
- Linux has no viruses
- Linux has better security
- Linux has more choice

Seriously, do I have to take out the good 'ol clue-by-four? This is not rocket-science! Right now, the advantage Windows has over Linux are the apps. If we get people hooked on Free software on Windows, that advantage will disappear, since people can switch to Linux (which is otherwise superior to Windows) and keep on using their apps! While Windows might have an advantage in absolute number of apps, all that matter is the apps that people actually use. We already offer a kick-ass browser (Firefox). OpenOffice is getting better all the time. Those two are major apps that people will want to use. But how could they find out about them, if it didn't run on their OS (Windows)? Now they can use them on Windows, and some day they will think that "hey, why do I have to suffer this virus-ridden Windows, when I can use Linux, and keep on using my apps like nothing had happened?"

"If what you say where true than Mac OSX should have been a windfall for Linux."

No, since Mac OS requires specific hardware from specifig vendor. And the hardware or it's price-point might not be suitable for the user.

"Mac OSX hurt us. Its a fact!"

Stating that it's a fact does not make it a fact. Care to show any real studies on this? And every study I have seen suggested that Linux is growing faster on the desktop than Mac is.

"In the end all this will do is give Windows more great applications."

If KDE ported their apps to Windows, I would use them on WinXP without switching to Linux. It really is that simple for me.

The reason why I haven't switched is the speed of the interface. I know this has been covered to death, but the problem remains.

KDE + apps offer all the funtionality I need from a desktop already, so that is a non-issue.

I even bought Linux Format (LXF58), which had Gentoo on the cover disk. I followed the instructions and compiled both Gentoo + KDE from scratch. My conclusion: Win2K still felt significantly faster to use on a daily basis than Gentoo + KDE on my P2 400MHz.

I now have a Celeron M 1500MHz laptop running WinXP. I will try Gentoo + KDE 3.4 when it is released.

Linux + KDE slows me down. MS Word loads as fast as it can draw all the widgets on FIRST load on my 2.4GHz machine at the office, which seems to take just under 1 second. It is instantaneous on second and subsequent loads. Anything longer than that is unacceptable to me. I use Firefox and Thunderbird (as alternatives to Explorer and Express), but these two apps still take too long to load. Anything more than 1 second is unacceptable for an application that is potentially opened and closed many times an hour. I don't keep apps open if I am not using them at that moment. Why? Because I can open and close them so quickly.

The day KOffice, Konqueror, amaroK etc are ported to WinXP is the day I stop reading the Dot and following the progress of KDE. Why? There would no longer be a need to see what is happening on the other side of the fence.

umm, if you want to use linux apps, in windows -- ??? not sure why not dual boot -- I would just download one of those partial distrobutions, you will have to do some searching (www.linux.org.com) you can search through distro there, any ways, you can get distros that are not entireally a real operating system, but they run in windows for that sort of then,not sure how efficient on system resources though.

"ecause this will never be the case. Do you honestly think that MS will port Office, Outlook, Halo 2, or anything to Linux? Seriously? Not a chance. There will always be some applications that people want that are only available on Windows. The only way to make F/OSS more appealing is to have MORE applications that they want on F/OSS platforms; and only on those platforms."

You miss the point entirely. Nobody is claiming MS will port MS Office, Outlook, Halo2, or any of that BS garbage. Halo2 is a FLOP(this should be in another discussion but I will report it here: Halo2 sold more games on opening day than any other game in history. It has since sold fewer games than any other top selling game in history). Back to my main point. These programs will NO LONGER BE REQUIRED if FOSS apps were available on windows. Just like people are ditching IE for FireFox. Just like people are ditching Outlook/Exchange for Thunderbird/Sunbird/iCalendar. Just like (some) people are ditching MS Office for OOo. Only locked in businesses need these things. And only high end PC gamers are buying systems that play Halo2. Did you know that Dell's top selling home PC is the Dimension 2400? That computer doesn't even HAVE A 3D Card and WILL NOT PLAY 3D video games. The principles discussed above will account for MOST of the people in the world. Your argument only accounts for a MINORITY of the people in the long run.

For your argument to make sence would imply that if people ported QT apps to Win32, that nobody would switch to them from the windows alternatives. If this was the case, then NO HARM DONE. But if people DO SWITCH to them, then there is NO LONGER A NEED for Outlook/Exchange, MS Office, MSVC++, Publisher, NERO/Roxio Burning software, ETC ETC.

So your argument makes its point against itself. It requires the success of KDE apps on Win32 for it to cause harm. But that success would automatically prove you wrong.

The preferences of home-users are irrelevant; what matters is that organizations (businesses, governments, schools, etc.) do care about license costs, security, etc., and if they switch, the home-users will eventually follow. Remember, in the 1980s, there were the so-called "home computers" (Commodore 64, Sinclair ZX80, Apple II, etc.), whereas the IBM PC was designed for business users; the IBM PC beat the others because people wanted to use the same platform at home that they use at work.